NVS 5200M vs Radeon R6 M255DX

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R6 M255DX with NVS 5200M, including specs and performance data.

R6 M255DX
2014
1.57
+18.9%

R6 M255DX outperforms NVS 5200M by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9761037
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.62
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameJetGF117
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date7 January 2014 (11 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores32096
Core clock speed780 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed855 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data25 Watt
Texture fill rate17.1010.00
Floating-point processing power0.5472 TFLOPS0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs2016

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceIGPMXM

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R6 M255DX 1.57
+18.9%
NVS 5200M 1.32

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R6 M255DX 605
+18.9%
NVS 5200M 509

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R6 M255DX 2198
+118%
NVS 5200M 1008

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R6 M255DX 5008
+17.3%
NVS 5200M 4268

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R6 M255DX 1115
+58.3%
NVS 5200M 704

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R6 M255DX 7172
+44.9%
NVS 5200M 4949

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD11
+0%
11
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Fortnite 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Valorant 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Fortnite 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Fortnite 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Valorant 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how R6 M255DX and NVS 5200M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R6 M255DX is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R6 M255DX is ahead in 33 tests (67%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (33%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.57 1.32
Recency 7 January 2014 1 June 2012

R6 M255DX has a 18.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The Radeon R6 M255DX is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5200M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R6 M255DX is a notebook graphics card while NVS 5200M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R6 M255DX
Radeon R6 M255DX
NVIDIA NVS 5200M
NVS 5200M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8
16 votes

Rate Radeon R6 M255DX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5
154 votes

Rate NVS 5200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R6 M255DX or NVS 5200M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.